MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XXXIX, Issue 12260, 10 June 1914, Page 5

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) , WAGES OR CONTRACT. Alexander Concher, a carpenter (Mr F W ' OnHey, of Ongley and Buileid), claimed from John Meikle. also a carpenter (Mr K P. Lee, of Messrs Lee Grave, and Grave), the sum of £l4 18s 6d, being balance of his portion ol the profit of contract entered into between himself and defendant for the erection of a building for Mr A\m. Laird, of Tapui. self and defendant for the erection or • building for Mr Wm. Laird at Tapui. Written evidence put in uy .UeiKle Stated that he had met Concher and told him he could get him a job in the countrv. The contract was for labor onlv, no material to be supplied. Plaintiff" said he was willing to go in partnership with him. Witness then went to Timaru and saw the architect, ill M'Nab. He returned to Oamaru with the' plans and particulars and went through them with plaintiff, and witness wrote tendering tor the job. Alter again interviewing the architect witness and plaintiff '"agreed" to submit a lower tender, which was accepted. Both were going in as partners at that time but there was only a verbal arrangement And there tvjis nothing in vrriting to show it. After working for a week he asked plaintiff to sign an Agreement. He refused on the ground that it would bind them to the sole arbitration of the architect. After being again asked, to sign the architect came down and witness signed the agreement with the proprietor, MrLaird. Witness signed as sole contractor. but did not tell plaintiff he had siened it, and plaintiff did he had signed it until the finish of the job. Throughout the plaintiff had been #,nxiou~s to skim things over and finish the job quickly. At the close of the job he gave plaintiff £6 Is 6d the balance of his due time worked (two payments of £7 and £lB having been made in the progress of the work). Plaintiff said he would hear more about it.: , ..

Alexander Coneher stated that the partnership "was understood between JiimspH and defendant and he was surprised. when he was told by defendant that,he had signed the contract- as sole contractor. This was when he wished •to get awav from the work for a. half day. TTie work was then only needing nboilt that- time to complete. Defendant. told him that witness could not' expect him to take all the responsibility and do .all the work too. Nothing had been said to him about wages until then. ' His Worship said that plaintiff had clearly made out his case. Kvidenee of both parties showed that a partnership had bren agreed upon, and although wheii the question of signing the contract arose, Meikle alone signed it, it mlist be taken that he did so as a partner if lie did not tell Coneher that- he had done so otherwise. He must hold that the contract- was left, by plaintiff in the hands of the defendant to arrange being ultimately signed by the areliiteci. lie gave judgment for plain.tiff. for the amount claimed, £l4 18s 6d, bnd costs. £2 6s.

LIQUOR. CASE DISMISSED. Thomas Tansey (Mr F. W. Ongley) wai> charged with sending liquor into the rio-license district of Oamaru without stating in writing the nature of the parcel, the quantity of liquor, name and address of the perto whom it was sent. Mr Ongley held that M'C-one, one of tlig: persons to whom liquor had been sent by accused, was not living in a no-license district. A. W. Woodward, registrar of electors, gave evidence that Oamaru was declared a no-license district at the last poll. So far as he knew M'Cone did not live within the boundaries of the nolicense district of Ardgowan wis not in the no-license district. The Totara. Settlement was not. in the nolicense district. Part of_Alma and part of Totara districts were in tile noiirtnse area.Jas. Eraser gave evidence that he lived at Taipo. . Thomas Tansey said he was aware t-hirt- Mrs M'Cone lived at Aragowan, a licensed district. He received a money order telegram asking him to send one bottle of whisky to the address of Mrs M'Cone. 'j ' To Mr Ongley: A previous case had decided that liquor coming through Oimaru did not contravene the Act. To Sergeant Stagpoole: He had addressed the liquor to Mrs M. M'Cone, Oamaru, Ardgowan, and not to Mr II tCope, whom he knew was prohibited. ' WitaesS produced what he described as it carbon duplicate of the consignment- note for f'raser's parcel, but his "Worship remarked after examination of both, that the document was neither a, true ccpy nor a duplicate of the original. Mr Ongley pointed out that m some particulars it was the same. His Worship: You are taking up a yefy ctilpable attitude as a licensee if voa'send liquor to the wife of a prohibited man. Man and wife are one in a case like this. _ .Witness: lam sorry, sir. I thought, perhaps, Mrs M'Cone was sick. His .Worship: You ought to be sorry if-that's vour attitude. Thomas Stevens, st-ationmaster at Olcnavv, stated xhat he had received parcels'from Tansey addressed to Jas. Eraser, Totara, care Geo. Adamson, Oamaru, and to Mrs M. M'Cone, care T. M'Cone, .Oamaru. : Percy Finnessv, railway porter at Oamaru, gave evidence of the delivery of parcels to Geo. Adamson and to T. M'Cone. . Constable M'Pherson stated that !.o saw 1 a case of whisky arrive at Oamaru marked as liquor and addressed to Jas. Eraser, Alma, care Geo. Adamson, Oamaru. The name Totara did not appear on the label. Mr Ongley said that while one section of the Act provided that the sender of all liquor intended for persons in nolicense districts should certify for whom the liquor was intended and other particulars, it, did not apply in this instance, as in hoth the present eases the recipients lived in licensed disi-"'.'.ls. Another section of the Act- pio\*t'i r -d that- all liquor coming into a no-license district for persons outside that district- should be labelled as liquor, and tliio had been complied with. His Worship said that the question at issue was where the liquor was intended to he sent. It could not- be sent to two places and t-te place sent to jnusfc bo determined to he the place ■where tile purchaser lived and received the liquor. Liquor for a no-license district-,, should be most clearly labelled. The person-s receiving ilic liquor in this case were outside the no-license district," and he would dismiss_ the information. He had no hesitation in saving that sending liquor to_ the wife of a prohibited person by a licensee was a most improper practice. Tile question 6f siipplving liquid refreshments to the wife herself in small quantities was not the same. , . , - A third; .similar charge was withdrawn, it being proved that notice and description of the liquor sent to "A. Craig" had- been, given, while the information really related to A. G-ray. The Magistrate was unable to decipher the writing in the notice sent Jjy Tansey, in which, lie said -'case" iriighfc be taken for "cask." CIVIL CASES.

• Judgment bv default was given by tlie Magistrate in ihe following civil cases:—Alex'. Clark and Allan Stewart Clark ("Mr Ongley) v. John Menzie. £-5 6s 8d costs 23s 6d : Milligan and Bond v. Stephen Cain, £1 17s 6d, costs 6s: fejnne* v. A. Jones, £1 19s 6d, costs cs: game r. John Campbell. £7 17s 6d, costs 8s; Buileid and Co. (Mr Ongley) y. Colin Campbell. £6 0s 4d, costs 33s 6d; David Herron (Mr Ongley) v. Colm Campbell, £5 3s 6d, costs 23s 6c!; S. J. Pavrs (Mi- Onglev') v. Colin Campbell, £4 9s, costs 10s: Wm. Bee v. R. Hoad, £9 19s 6d, costs 17s,